Environmentalists continue to use every means of measuring the temperature
of the planet except a thermometer. A case in point is the recent claim
that the rising number of presidential disaster declarations - often used
as a means of dishing out government pork rather than helping the needy
- is a sign that the planet is warming.

At a recent press conference held to influence the November 2-13 global
warming talks in Buenos Aires, Argentina, U.S. Public Interest Research
Group (USPIRG) falsely asserted that the recent floods in Texas, alleged
increases in natural catastrophe costs and alleged increases in extreme
weather fatalities are signs that global warming is underway. Even more
ludicrous, however, is that the group claimed that increases in presidential
disaster declarations are caused by global warming. Noted USPIRG, "The
average number of disaster declarations has increased from 25 per year between
1979-1983 to 46.6 per year between 1994-1998 - an 86% increase."1

USPIRG wasn't entirely honest with these statistics, however. For one
thing, USPIRG selected periods of time for comparison that it knew would
produce the most dramatic results. Natural disaster declarations are controlled
not only by the weather, but by the person occupying the White House. From
1979-1983, during the Carter and Reagan Administrations, disaster declarations
were significantly below their historic levels, while from 1994-1998, the
Clinton years, disaster declarations were significantly above historic levels.
During the 33-year period extending from January 1, 1965 to January 12,
1998, there were 1,198 presidential disaster declarations - equal to an
average of more than 36 declarations per year, or 44% more than the average
number made during 1979-1983.

USPIRG also didn't take into account that presidential disaster declarations
tend to be viewed by many Presidents - though not all - as a means of bolstering
their re-election chances. There is nothing better than a photo opportunity
of a President handing out money to disaster victims to help create the
image that the Commander-in-Chief really cares for people like you and me.
During four of the past six presidential election years, disaster declarations
jumped above the norm (See Table 1).2

During his reelection bid in 1996, for example, President Clinton declared
75 disasters, more than double the average annual number of such declarations
since 1964. Excluding that election year, however, President Clinton averaged
just over 33 disaster declarations per year during his first term, three
less than the 1964-1998 average.

It is worth noting that Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan stand out as the
only two Presidents over the past several decades to declare fewer disasters
during presidential election years than during non-election years. Jimmy
Carter also lost his re-election bid.

As a former member of the board of directors of a university-based PIRG,
which USPIRG represents in Washington, I am appalled that USPIRG would so
blatantly misrepresent disaster statistics simply to win rhetorical points
in the global warming debate. But this isn't the only area where USPIRG
has played loose with the facts in the global warming debate.

USPIRG also claims that the rising costs of natural catastrophes in recent
years are a sign that global warming is underway. According to USPIRG, "Worldwide,
the economic loss related to natural catastrophes in the last ten years
is 8.5 times the cost in the 1960s."3 This statement is extraordinarily
misleading, however, because comparing losses in the 1960s and the 1990s
is like comparing apples to oranges. While USPIRG at least went to the effort
to index disaster costs to inflation, it did not adjust these figures to
account for such factors as wealth accumulation and increased population.
Much of the increase in natural disaster costs in recent years is due to
the fact that there are more people, and thus more property (homes, office
buildings, resorts, etc.), located in locations vulnerable to extreme weather
events today than there were 20 or 30 years ago.

"[These figures have not been adjusted] for wealth and population,"
says Thomas Loster of Geoscience Research Group Munich Re, the reinsurance
company that provided USPIRG with its natural disaster cost estimates. "Of
course, we are aware that these two things are most important..."4

Once disaster costs are adjusted for wealth and population, it becomes
clear not only that these costs haven't risen but are smaller than they
were during the 1920s, when the planet was presumably cooler than today.
A study released in January 1998 by Dr. Roger A. Pielke, Jr. of the Environmental
and Societal Impacts Group of the National Center for Atmospheric Research
and Christopher Landsea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
Hurricane Research Division, found that hurricanes, the costliest natural
disasters in the United States, were nearly 2.7 times more costly from 1925-1929
than they were during the first five years of the 1990s, once population
and wealth are factored in. (See Table 2)5

A further problem with USPIRG's disaster cost figures is that they only
measure insured property losses, not total property losses. They thus do
not take into account the fact that the portion of insured property as a
percentage of total property may have increased over the years. As the percentage
of all property covered by insurance increases, one would expect that the
amount of insurance claims would also increase, regardless of the incidence
of natural disasters.

Environmentalists - including USPIRG - have also cited the loss of 374
lives to all natural disasters during the first six months of this year
as evidence that the planet is warming beyond an acceptable level. As tragic
as this loss of life was, however, it was not particularly unusual. In 1900,
between 8,000 and 12,000 people in Galveston, Texas lost their lives as
the result of a single tropical storm.6

Finally, USPIRG points to the recent floods in Texas, where as much as
two feet of rain fell in a single weekend, as proof that global warming
is occurring.7 Again, these floods weren't record-breaking and thus don't
offer the kind of evidence of dramatic weather change USPIRG would have
us believe they do. Texas' record for rainfall occurred July 25-26, 1979,
when, in a single 24-hour period, an estimated 43 inches of rain fell.8
Moreover, the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), the United Nations body charged with coordinating a world response
to global warming, states: "Overall, there is no evidence that extreme
weather events, or climate variability, has increased in a global sense,
through the 20th century..."9

If environmental groups such as USPIRG sincerely want to learn whether
or not the planet's temperature is rising they could try this novel approach:
Use a thermometer. NASA's thermometers in space have tracked the earth's
temperature for nearly two decades and show a slight cooling trend since
1979. Perhaps that's the very reason environmentalists are using everything
but a thermometer to measure the temperature of the planet.

David A. Ridenour is Vice President of The National Center for Public
Policy Research, a Washington, D.C. think tank, where he oversees the group's
environmental program. Comments may be sent to [email protected].